On coming home i decided i would venture to The Henry Moore institute for the latest exhibition of Alan Johnston's Wall Drawings. I haven't been to the Henry Moor Institute too often , however i felt fairly excited and inquisitive about this new show. With the caption on the poster reading
'A pencil
12 walls
120 hours
450 sq. metres
1 exhibition'
It sounded intense. I had in mind that this would be somewhat a perfomative work, about the strain and perseverance of constant drawing.
I was so uninspired by the whole thing that to even begin to write about it now is a task.
So i will write about Henry Moore's use of space first.
The first room of the main exhibition space, leading off from the back of the reception area, is fairly good is size, narrow, but a good high ceiling. The light is pretty dull in here though. It was a naturally bright and sunny day, however this could not be felt through the one small window on the right of the room.
In noting this i am surprised that more lighting was not used in this room. Obviously anything too bright could ruin works but it felt very dull and unfriendly, even more so as it is a very modernist interior. But it felt a bit like the space wasn't being used.
The second room was very large, echoing around the entire three people that were in it, [i am including invigilators by the way] and the ceilings loomed over making it feel vast and surprisingly un like anything you would expect to exist in leeds city centre. The light was bright and natural and i felt much more stimulated in this room. Even on a grey day the sky lights above would allow for reflection off any of the white washed walls giving good light.
And the third room, was again smaller, open plan just off the larger middle room which allowed it to feel a little brighter but with lack of windows the gallery lighting was not sufficient in making the room feel at all inspiring.
It is hard to describe how work is presented in this location as the gallery was in this instance only playing host to one artist who had used the space itself as a canvas. The use of mounting on the small marquette painting was minimal as was labelling, all information could be found online and in paper programmes.
There was nothing particularly inspiring about this space. The main room i do love for it's openness and dramatic structure but then the two smaller rooms feel out of place in comparison, the space as a whole doesn't compliment itself. It is really neither here nor there with such in-congruency.
When it comes to the exhibiting work itself i do feel it works in terms of it's site however it again was nothing special, neither here nor there, and i don't feel it deserved to take over the entire space, rather i would have found a co-habiting exhibitor placing their art alongside much more interesting. That way i could have viewed the way in which such works played alongside eachother.
Some people like very minimalist art, as do on on occasions, minimalist exhibitions, i don't like.
I needed more to look at as i felt i came away looking at nothing.
This says to me although cramping too many works into one space is bad the space still needs to be used well, to enhance the senses of the viewer, to make a visit seem worthwhile.
Blurgh to this, it has officially drained me and has become the anti climatic art i hoped for.
Monday 22 February 2010
Thursday 18 February 2010
Bloomburg
After the personal excitement I found in the Saatchi I was really looking forward to visiting the Bloomburg space, if a little dubious on being able to find it.
As it goes it was just as easy to find as the Saatchi, a five minute walk from Moorgate station and signposted from about half the way down City Road, although a little bit random and out of the way of … well anything bar Wesley’s chapel and a large Marks and Spencer, it was all in all a decent enough location.
I’d been looking forward to seeing Charlotte Moth’s work, I had done a little research on her before coming down and her work really stood out to me, with our mutual interest in projection slides. I wasn’t so familiar with the other artists work,
I’d been looking forward to seeing Charlotte Moth’s work, I had done a little research on her before coming down and her work really stood out to me, with our mutual interest in projection slides. I wasn’t so familiar with the other artists work,
I wasn’t sure what to expect within the space as both the online and poster descriptions for the exhibition had been pretty vague, in terms of work that was to be presented.
Upon entering the space it felt quite formal, a man at the desk where you walked in through the automatic doors, it felt like an office building … which it was really, and this gallery space was just a small aspect of the whole structure, created in an attempt to give a slight sense of warmth in a business environment. The first room played host to sculpture by……
There wasn’t anything truly amazing about the space, architecturally the interior structure was angular and rather interesting, with a high ceiling soaring above. This became more prominent as the length of the room was by no means a match for such a big ceiling and this did emphasize drama. This beings said it didn’t feel like a natural gallery space, far too corporate, and normally a gallery has a few voices, a ‘hubble’ of sound, here it was SILENT, bar the over slide projector switching and my own solitary footsteps [which In theory I liked the fact the echoes] yet in reality I felt very watched and, time felt of the essence, like I wasn’t welcome to say.
In comparison with the Saatchi it was quite a lot darker, with synthetic light being used, the only natural / seemingly natural light coming from the entrance.
This sort of took away from the drama of the pieces as they appeared greyer than they actually were and a little tired and mundane. It was brought to my attention that light is very important, not necessarily just for the artworks themselves but also to brighten the mood of the viewer, the greyness just made me feel bored and uninterested.
There wasn’t anything truly amazing about the space, architecturally the interior structure was angular and rather interesting, with a high ceiling soaring above. This became more prominent as the length of the room was by no means a match for such a big ceiling and this did emphasize drama. This beings said it didn’t feel like a natural gallery space, far too corporate, and normally a gallery has a few voices, a ‘hubble’ of sound, here it was SILENT, bar the over slide projector switching and my own solitary footsteps [which In theory I liked the fact the echoes] yet in reality I felt very watched and, time felt of the essence, like I wasn’t welcome to say.
In comparison with the Saatchi it was quite a lot darker, with synthetic light being used, the only natural / seemingly natural light coming from the entrance.
This sort of took away from the drama of the pieces as they appeared greyer than they actually were and a little tired and mundane. It was brought to my attention that light is very important, not necessarily just for the artworks themselves but also to brighten the mood of the viewer, the greyness just made me feel bored and uninterested.
There wasn’t any particularly noticeable use of plinths, or stand for the sculptures, they were more or less just ‘placed’. The projected film was well positioned, to avoid people interfering with the transition from film to wall.
The second room was small and pitch black, it seemed a little makeshift as the black came from hung drapes, I couldn’t help but feel the darkness wasn’t completely needed and even if it was, painted black walls would have worked better. The two projectors were situated together on one plinth, projecting onto the back wall. The room wasn’t all that big in parameters, however with how busy it was on this day I doubt it needed to be bigger.
Between the two rooms were leaflets which the public were able to rip off to read about the artist and their work, however there was no further labels / signs and it all felt a bit accidental.
The second room was small and pitch black, it seemed a little makeshift as the black came from hung drapes, I couldn’t help but feel the darkness wasn’t completely needed and even if it was, painted black walls would have worked better. The two projectors were situated together on one plinth, projecting onto the back wall. The room wasn’t all that big in parameters, however with how busy it was on this day I doubt it needed to be bigger.
Between the two rooms were leaflets which the public were able to rip off to read about the artist and their work, however there was no further labels / signs and it all felt a bit accidental.
As I stepped around the room, searching for signs of the remainder of Moth’s exhibits [a shiny blue curtain installation] there was an opening in the black curtains, however I didn’t think this area was accessible, I was about to leave when I noticed the security guard sitting behind the gap, and questioned whether I could enter. At this point he told me this as where the remainder of the work lay. Had I not seen him I wouldn’t have known the work was there and would have left. I’m not sure if it was meant to be a mystery, or if I was supposed to know the space better but I thought it fairly stupid to not give better directions.
When I did get to the curtain, it was far from thrilling, it again didn’t look like the work existed as art, only would you realise that from knowing this was a gallery, it simply looked like a regular sequinned curtain extending a balcony. I suppose this was more the problem of the piece rather than the gallery perhaps however I once again [tediously] felt that this could have been displayed better.
When I did get to the curtain, it was far from thrilling, it again didn’t look like the work existed as art, only would you realise that from knowing this was a gallery, it simply looked like a regular sequinned curtain extending a balcony. I suppose this was more the problem of the piece rather than the gallery perhaps however I once again [tediously] felt that this could have been displayed better.
In terms of how the works of the two artists were displayed against each other I felt they seemed completely separate from each other. When thinking in terms of our future gallery spaces for May, I would like to think our work would manage to compliment each other somehow no matter how different it is. Rather than allow the work to coexist Bloomburg separated the two artists and the exhibition made me feel ostracized as though I was in two different exhibitions.
Had the rooms been consistent in their décor, and presentation of the art works, the exhibition could have felt successful but it just felt, too temporary, and very un considered in layout aesthetic.
Had the rooms been consistent in their décor, and presentation of the art works, the exhibition could have felt successful but it just felt, too temporary, and very un considered in layout aesthetic.
I think even I have gone around with the idea in mind that it is all about my work and the space is not of that greater importance, however such an exhibition as this showed to me the emphasis on how space can effect art. The two come side by side, without one the other cannot work, even a prestigious `Turner painting can look crap in the wrong light, as the active environment proffered to us subconsciously effects our perception of every work, allowing us to lose or gain all of the right attributes.
One bad black curtain can make or break everything.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
London Essay
London is crazy. In all the times i have been here, it seemed to be now that time flew faster than ever, just when i needed to grasp it most.
I had initially planned to enter around 4 galleries, and what was was apparent for me was that i was not prepared to go anywhere just for the sake of viewing the gallery space and hanging techniques in preperation for ppd2. The work itself was just as important and so i set about researching current exhibitions. I could have easily gone to the 'Tate's' and Barbican but as i have been to such places more than once, i felt it could help to refresh myself with new space, and challenge myself in finding something exciting.
The first place i visited ironically is incredibley famous, it's just that i, have never visited it, as i never pre planned well enough to find myself with a decent map to locate it.
This seemingly elusive treasure is infact the Saatchi Gallery.
I've always wanted to go but only realised this right as soon as it had closed down for relocation around 4 years ago, so now was the time.
It was actually very easy to find, literally five minutes walk from Sloane Square tube station.
Here is a little information about the building itself, which is beautiful, yes it is wikipedia so it may not be precise but i have faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York's_Headquarters
The traditional idea of gallery architecture is very much embodied in the granduear of this building, and you sense the realisation of why lower and working classes would feel daunted and want to avoid coming here as the walls enclose around the premises, the clean cut shaped grass front and looming pillars make it feel more like a stately home than a free for all public gallery space.
However stepping inside, this immediate visual experience is displaced with contrasting contemporary interior structures and design. Brick work is gone, and the walls are stark, white and new. The ceilings are still tall, looming above the viewer, but they are bright and without the victorian cornering you might expect.
Some would probably call this sacrelidge for such an admired piece of architecture but i believe you have to really go one of two ways when altering interior on buildings, either recreate the original aesthetic or alter it completely, moving as far away from what it was originally as possible. Here, the latter works more relevantly as the attention art demands could not be given in a distracting, highly decorated place.
Although we are in half term school, holiday week the gallery was surprisingly quiet, or at least due to teh vastness of each room you felt independant from any other crowds which was a refershing change from the Tate Modern which gets jam packed and cramped during holidays *grumble grumble*
Anyway with my curators thinking cap on, what i wanted to consider was how piece were presenented in terms of physical placement, height, additonal props such as shelves, lighting, space in the gallery. And of course the all important choice of works, how works complimnented eachother [both in terms of the variety of works and artists]....if that makes sense.
The space is split into almost fifteen rooms [there's a few small one's for the school prize, and one for another gallery] each being great in size. Lighting was the same throughout the gallery, supplied by small spotlights from the ceiling, however a great deal of the light came from the glass ceilings, which were panelled and appeared like skylights, Impossible of course seeing as there were two floors of gallery spaces above.
This consistancy of such lighting allowed individual pieces to be viewed in all of their detail, nothing to be missed whilst remaining sincere to original colour of the pieces. For them to be seen as the artist intended.
As much as i have considered the importance of lighting in general gallery situations the possibility of synthetic light that appears natural had never really occurred to me. Such a seemingly small idea had a truely positive effect on the whole gallery concept and allowed the space to seem much more promising than normal spotlighting would have allowed for.
In terms of space, i generally find contemporary art galleries to be fair with their allocation per item, in this instance i wasn't sure if such allocation was only relevant to this exhibition 'The Empire Strikes Back: Indian Art Today' or whether it the layout would be approached in a similar minimalist manner everytime, i presume the latter.
Room One opened the visitor up to the prospect of the minmalism to come, as it contained only one piece along the left hand wall, spanning from the entrance along the length of the room. This could have seemed like a waste of space but you could understand why the enttire room was needed both in the practical sense of the size of the installation, and in terms of viewing, other works may have taken away from the qualities the piece intended to put across.
Smaller pieces of work meant the remaining rooms [with the exception of rooms ten and eleven] had around four or five pieces in each.
The work ranged between painting, sculpture / installation and photography, within each room these were placed in varying ways, some rooms mixed artists, subject matter and media, while others remained loyal to one particular artist or theme. On one occasion when an artist held multiple works of a running theme, they were split between two rooms, to avoid being repetative and aid a fresh experience, upon entering the second room. On another occassion, one artist held a series of four portrait photographs, of of which appeared slightly different in theme and so rathet then pull it down, it was merely distanced slightly from the others. Obviously the exhibition under question was themed on Indian Art, and so it was only natural that consistancy occurred, whether this be found in thematic value, media, palette, it allowed for the works to compliment eachother. For example sculpture involving electronics was placed together in one lesser lit room to bring attention to the use of media. Meanwhile running further than that there was, really, an underlying sub-catagorization in the way artist's works were placed together, to ensure the pieces worked well together.
Paintings where hung fairly low to allow the viewer to come face to face with the work, whatever the scale may be, sculpture however became a little more complex. This was more down to an understanding of how each individual piece ought to be viewed, smaller sculptures were placed on plinths to avoid placement appearing accaidental [so it seemed] and for larger pieces some needed the addition of height, as they appeared in a state of scale limbo. Whatever the case may be, plinths were made to scale, 4 sided and always white, again remaining minimalist to avoid detracting from the pieces in question.
The space throughout each room was great, and the rooms could have easily been filled a little more without being cluttered, however Saatchi's choice of works is generally for one's of a theatrical / powerful
nature meaning both he, and the works themselves demand to be viewed, alone; So rooms were kept to a maximum of 5 pieces. Each work was placed alone, acting as a stopping point for the exhibition goer, so they could review the work rather than be distracted by fiorth coming pieces.
Each piece was placed at the side of the room rather than the middle, in general one piece per side, which worked better for space, as then visitors did not crowd the centre of the room, nor did the block the view of other works. The centre of the room was left open for the visitors to stand from all angles of the room. Sculpture was placed slightly out from the wall to allow it to be walked around and viewed from all angles. Playing further onto this idea of accessibilty, there were no ropes or wires in place to distance the viewer from the work, instead i was allowed to be as close to the piece as possible, practically taste the texture of the paint, and be daunted by sculptures that loomed over me.
Art should be seen, felt and even touched and i have a love / hate relationship with the red velvet rope. i love it because i want to climb over it, it adds mystery but i hate the elitism of not being allowed access to what lies before me. Cultural figures are always commenting on how galleries are becoming ever more accessible but really when you place restrictions underway that completely contradicts this 'freedom for all' idea, the freedom to be educated, as you can 'look but you mustn't touch'.
Well the point being that this gallery throws that concept out of the window, and wants as many people as possible into the vacinty to learn and to do that they must lean in.
The final gallery room took all these concepts and threw them on their head, as it was in this room that the gallery allow an external gallery to come in and exhibit their work and sell it.
'The Frank Suss Collection' had some lovely pieces in it, but as it had the top floor of the gallery [with sloped ceiling] it already felt smaller, this added to the greater amount of works on view meant it felt much less personal as an experience, and far more corporate. In here they had regained the typical gallery rules, with labels saying 'Do Not Touch'. The only labels to be seen downstairs were of the general information of the piece. Not even information on why the work was made, and i quite liked being left to my independant ideas on why it had come to exist. The only exception to this rule was in room ten and eleven where two larger works, one a commision and one an ongoing project took up entire rooms and so required further information on the artist.
And finally here is a video tour of the gallery in case you can't get through all of this.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/video-tour.htm
In the words of Gordon Ramsey... Saatchi, Done!
I had initially planned to enter around 4 galleries, and what was was apparent for me was that i was not prepared to go anywhere just for the sake of viewing the gallery space and hanging techniques in preperation for ppd2. The work itself was just as important and so i set about researching current exhibitions. I could have easily gone to the 'Tate's' and Barbican but as i have been to such places more than once, i felt it could help to refresh myself with new space, and challenge myself in finding something exciting.
The first place i visited ironically is incredibley famous, it's just that i, have never visited it, as i never pre planned well enough to find myself with a decent map to locate it.
This seemingly elusive treasure is infact the Saatchi Gallery.
I've always wanted to go but only realised this right as soon as it had closed down for relocation around 4 years ago, so now was the time.
It was actually very easy to find, literally five minutes walk from Sloane Square tube station.
Here is a little information about the building itself, which is beautiful, yes it is wikipedia so it may not be precise but i have faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York's_Headquarters
The traditional idea of gallery architecture is very much embodied in the granduear of this building, and you sense the realisation of why lower and working classes would feel daunted and want to avoid coming here as the walls enclose around the premises, the clean cut shaped grass front and looming pillars make it feel more like a stately home than a free for all public gallery space.
However stepping inside, this immediate visual experience is displaced with contrasting contemporary interior structures and design. Brick work is gone, and the walls are stark, white and new. The ceilings are still tall, looming above the viewer, but they are bright and without the victorian cornering you might expect.
Some would probably call this sacrelidge for such an admired piece of architecture but i believe you have to really go one of two ways when altering interior on buildings, either recreate the original aesthetic or alter it completely, moving as far away from what it was originally as possible. Here, the latter works more relevantly as the attention art demands could not be given in a distracting, highly decorated place.
Although we are in half term school, holiday week the gallery was surprisingly quiet, or at least due to teh vastness of each room you felt independant from any other crowds which was a refershing change from the Tate Modern which gets jam packed and cramped during holidays *grumble grumble*
Anyway with my curators thinking cap on, what i wanted to consider was how piece were presenented in terms of physical placement, height, additonal props such as shelves, lighting, space in the gallery. And of course the all important choice of works, how works complimnented eachother [both in terms of the variety of works and artists]....if that makes sense.
The space is split into almost fifteen rooms [there's a few small one's for the school prize, and one for another gallery] each being great in size. Lighting was the same throughout the gallery, supplied by small spotlights from the ceiling, however a great deal of the light came from the glass ceilings, which were panelled and appeared like skylights, Impossible of course seeing as there were two floors of gallery spaces above.
This consistancy of such lighting allowed individual pieces to be viewed in all of their detail, nothing to be missed whilst remaining sincere to original colour of the pieces. For them to be seen as the artist intended.
As much as i have considered the importance of lighting in general gallery situations the possibility of synthetic light that appears natural had never really occurred to me. Such a seemingly small idea had a truely positive effect on the whole gallery concept and allowed the space to seem much more promising than normal spotlighting would have allowed for.
In terms of space, i generally find contemporary art galleries to be fair with their allocation per item, in this instance i wasn't sure if such allocation was only relevant to this exhibition 'The Empire Strikes Back: Indian Art Today' or whether it the layout would be approached in a similar minimalist manner everytime, i presume the latter.
Room One opened the visitor up to the prospect of the minmalism to come, as it contained only one piece along the left hand wall, spanning from the entrance along the length of the room. This could have seemed like a waste of space but you could understand why the enttire room was needed both in the practical sense of the size of the installation, and in terms of viewing, other works may have taken away from the qualities the piece intended to put across.
Smaller pieces of work meant the remaining rooms [with the exception of rooms ten and eleven] had around four or five pieces in each.
The work ranged between painting, sculpture / installation and photography, within each room these were placed in varying ways, some rooms mixed artists, subject matter and media, while others remained loyal to one particular artist or theme. On one occasion when an artist held multiple works of a running theme, they were split between two rooms, to avoid being repetative and aid a fresh experience, upon entering the second room. On another occassion, one artist held a series of four portrait photographs, of of which appeared slightly different in theme and so rathet then pull it down, it was merely distanced slightly from the others. Obviously the exhibition under question was themed on Indian Art, and so it was only natural that consistancy occurred, whether this be found in thematic value, media, palette, it allowed for the works to compliment eachother. For example sculpture involving electronics was placed together in one lesser lit room to bring attention to the use of media. Meanwhile running further than that there was, really, an underlying sub-catagorization in the way artist's works were placed together, to ensure the pieces worked well together.
Paintings where hung fairly low to allow the viewer to come face to face with the work, whatever the scale may be, sculpture however became a little more complex. This was more down to an understanding of how each individual piece ought to be viewed, smaller sculptures were placed on plinths to avoid placement appearing accaidental [so it seemed] and for larger pieces some needed the addition of height, as they appeared in a state of scale limbo. Whatever the case may be, plinths were made to scale, 4 sided and always white, again remaining minimalist to avoid detracting from the pieces in question.
The space throughout each room was great, and the rooms could have easily been filled a little more without being cluttered, however Saatchi's choice of works is generally for one's of a theatrical / powerful
nature meaning both he, and the works themselves demand to be viewed, alone; So rooms were kept to a maximum of 5 pieces. Each work was placed alone, acting as a stopping point for the exhibition goer, so they could review the work rather than be distracted by fiorth coming pieces.
Each piece was placed at the side of the room rather than the middle, in general one piece per side, which worked better for space, as then visitors did not crowd the centre of the room, nor did the block the view of other works. The centre of the room was left open for the visitors to stand from all angles of the room. Sculpture was placed slightly out from the wall to allow it to be walked around and viewed from all angles. Playing further onto this idea of accessibilty, there were no ropes or wires in place to distance the viewer from the work, instead i was allowed to be as close to the piece as possible, practically taste the texture of the paint, and be daunted by sculptures that loomed over me.
Art should be seen, felt and even touched and i have a love / hate relationship with the red velvet rope. i love it because i want to climb over it, it adds mystery but i hate the elitism of not being allowed access to what lies before me. Cultural figures are always commenting on how galleries are becoming ever more accessible but really when you place restrictions underway that completely contradicts this 'freedom for all' idea, the freedom to be educated, as you can 'look but you mustn't touch'.
Well the point being that this gallery throws that concept out of the window, and wants as many people as possible into the vacinty to learn and to do that they must lean in.
The final gallery room took all these concepts and threw them on their head, as it was in this room that the gallery allow an external gallery to come in and exhibit their work and sell it.
'The Frank Suss Collection' had some lovely pieces in it, but as it had the top floor of the gallery [with sloped ceiling] it already felt smaller, this added to the greater amount of works on view meant it felt much less personal as an experience, and far more corporate. In here they had regained the typical gallery rules, with labels saying 'Do Not Touch'. The only labels to be seen downstairs were of the general information of the piece. Not even information on why the work was made, and i quite liked being left to my independant ideas on why it had come to exist. The only exception to this rule was in room ten and eleven where two larger works, one a commision and one an ongoing project took up entire rooms and so required further information on the artist.
And finally here is a video tour of the gallery in case you can't get through all of this.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/video-tour.htm
In the words of Gordon Ramsey... Saatchi, Done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
